alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 77 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 77

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 3, 2015.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Mr. Welch and Ms. Michelle 
Lujan Grisham of New Mexico.
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Tonko.
    Committee on Small Business: Ms. Adams.
    Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Walz and Mr. McNerney.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of Michael Raphael et al., Appellants, v Montgomery County Board of Elections et al., Respondents.

— Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (White, J.), entered August 19, 1991 in Montgomery County, which dismissed petitioners’ application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to declare valid two opportunity to ballot petitions for the positions of Members of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee in the September 12, 1991 primary election.

By order to show cause dated August 12, 1991, petitioners commenced the instant proceeding challenging the invalidation by respondent Montgomery County Board of Elections of two opportunity to ballot petitions for the position of Members of the County Democratic Committee in the September 12, 1991 primary election. Thereafter, respondents moved to dismiss the application on the grounds of lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction. Supreme Court granted respondents’ motion without addressing the jurisdictional issue, concluding that petitioners had no standing under Election Law § 16-102 to bring the proceeding. This appeal ensued.

Pursuant to the order to show cause, petitioners were required to serve respondents either personally or by substituted service to be accomplished by affixing the papers to the front doors of their residences. In an affidavit submitted in *966support of respondents’ motion to dismiss, respondent Eleanor Olechowski, a person designated in the order to show cause to be served, averred that she was not served in accordance with the order to show cause. This affidavit was in no way rebutted in petitioners’ opposing papers. Therefore, Supreme Court was without jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding and its order dismissing petitioners’ application should be affirmed *(see, Matter of Sahler v Callahan,*92 AD2d 976, 977).

Moreover, we agree with the conclusion reached by Supreme Court on the issue of standing.. Petitioners are not within the group of people authorized under Election Law § 16-102 to bring this proceeding *(see, Matter of Twombly v Hall,*71 AD2d 939).

Yesawich Jr., J. P., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.
# C_2007170EN.01002701.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/27

---

Action brought on 18 May 2007 — Far Eastern Textile v Council

(Case T-167/07)

(2007/C 170/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Far Eastern Textile Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in Taiwan, insofar as it relates to the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating, inter alia, in Taiwan, insofar as it relates to the applicant; and

inter alia

| — | order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a Taiwanese producer and exporter of polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’), seeks the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 of 22 February 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Thailand and Taiwan following an expiry review and a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1).

1

In support of its application, the applicant, first of all, submits that the Council violated Article 2(11) of the Basic Regulation (2) by applying the asymmetrical method to calculate the applicant's dumping margin.

2

Secondly, the applicant alleges that the Council violated Article 253 EC by failing to provide adequate reasons why the symmetrical comparison methods did not reflect the full degree of dumping.

Thirdly, the applicant contends that the Council violated Article 2(10), (11) and (12) of the Basic Regulation by calculating the applicant's dumping margin using zeroing techniques zeroing any negative dumping margins when calculating the weighted average dumping margin pursuant to Article 2(12).

Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council violated Article 253 EC by failing to state adequate reasons why the applicant's dumping margin must be calculated using zeroing techniques.

---

(1)  OJ 2007 L 59, p. 1.

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

2

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 28, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Open Source Imaging Consortium, Inc. (“Open Source Imaging Consortium”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung City, TAIWAN, has been added as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Open Source Imaging Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 20, 2019, Open Source Imaging Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 12, 2019 (84 FR 1497).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on May 23, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 4211).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2023-27572 Filed 12-14-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00 582

- CR

IN RE Jason MIEARS

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 8, 2010

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 2, 2010, relator Jason Miears filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court

has considered relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief

sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009

- CR

- 6566 , styled State of Te xas v. Jason Miears , pending in

the 379th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
#### State v. Pham

17070

3/15/95

Affirmed
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 24, 2014

d0616

Order 

Clerk

June 24, 2014

148795

VIRGINIA C. KUKUK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 148795

COA: 310616

St. Clair CC: 10-002949-CZ

HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR 

SEQUOIA MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-3,

MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORP., 

PHH MORTGAGE CORP., TROTT &

TROTT, P.C., and NEW CENTURY 

MORTGAGE CORP.,

Defendants-Appellees. 

______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 14, 2014 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Merriweather, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Irving Lang, J.), rendered March 24, 1988, convicting defendant after a jury trial of attempted robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree and sentencing him as a persistent violent felony offender to concurrent terms of 22 years to life and 15 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant attempted to rob his victim, who was returning from the bank carrying some $10,000 in cash, at gunpoint, in mid-afternoon, near Fifth Avenue and 37th Street. During the struggle, defendant beat the victim several times with the gun before fleeing. This attempted robbery was observed by several witnesses, one of whom followed defendant on foot for several blocks, during which time defendant entered an alley by a restaurant, abandoned his coat, and emerged wearing a different jacket. This witness immediately notified police, who apprehended defendant.

With respect to defendant’s claim that he was improperly impeached concerning his post-arrest silence, whatever impropriety occurred would not warrant reversal. Although counsel objected to the questions, he never requested curative instruc*91tions, either when his objection was sustained or during final instructions. Nor did defendant timely move for a mistrial; the motion was not made until after the defense had rested. For these reasons, we conclude that defendant has waived any claim. *(People v Bryant,*163 AD2d 406.)

Nor do we find any basis for a reversal in the court’s instructions to the jury on the elements of robbery in the first degree. The charge, taken as a whole, conveyed the basic legal principles that defendant had to intend to forcibly steal *(People v Mosley,*67 NY2d 985). We note that the court defined robbery directly from the statute *(People v Rawlings,*159 AD2d 655, 656).

Defendant’s claims with respect to the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved for review as a matter of law and we decline to address them and we find no abuse in the sentence imposed. Concur — Milonas, J. R, Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 14, 2023.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 4, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 129 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-94, CP2024-96.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2023-27407 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. GINGREY of Georgia:
       H.R. 6194.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 that states, ``To regulate 
     Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, 
     and with Indian Tribes''
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 25, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

            By Mr. CONYERS:
        H.R. 6183.
        Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                               50,216
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    126,224
<PP&E>                              350,195
<DEPRECIATION>                      169,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    3,214,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             2,353,335
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                            510,408
<OTHER-SE>                          350,930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      3,214,673
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   99,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (1,207,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (1,207,014)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.02)
        


</TABLE>
# C_2021217EN.01001101.xml

| 7.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — The North of England P & I Association Ltd, as successor in law to Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

(Case C-786/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct insurance other than life assurance - Second Directive 88/357/EEC - Second indent of Article 2(d) - Directive 92/49/EEC - First subparagraph of Article 46(2) - Taxation of insurance premiums - Concept of ‘Member State where the risk is situated’ - Vehicles of any type - Concept of ‘Member State of registration’ - Insurance of sea-going vessels - Ships entered in the shipping register maintained by one Member State but flying the flag of another Member State or of a third State under a temporary flagging-out authorisation)

(2021/C 217/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The North of England P & I Association Ltd, as successor in law to Marine Shipping Mutual Insurance Company

Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 46(2) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life insurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (‘third non-life insurance directive’), read together with the second indent of Article 2(d) of Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that, where insurance contracts concern the provision of cover for various risks linked to the operation of sea-going vessels which are entered in the shipping register maintained by a Member State but which fly the flag of another Member State or of a third State under a temporary flagging-out authorisation, the State that must be considered to be the ‘Member State of registration’ of the ship concerned and therefore, to be ‘the Member State where the risk is situated’, within the meaning of those provisions, holding the exclusive power to tax premiums paid with respect to those insurance contracts, is the Member State which maintains the shipping register in which the primary purpose of entering that ship is to prove ownership of that ship.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,624,313
<SECURITIES>                                 6,581,646
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,221,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (175,574)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,351,407
<PP&E>                                      12,113,120
<DEPRECIATION>                             (5,508,858)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,863,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,436,513
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       722,018
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,078,436
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,863,252
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,127,048
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,243,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,915,288
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                171,931
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            171,931
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   171,931
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
# ARC Investments - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Special Initiatives FY 2023 Investments The post Special Initiatives FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Appalachian Region FY 2023 Investments The post Appalachian Region FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Alabama FY 2023 Investments The post Alabama FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Georgia FY 2023 Investments The post Georgia FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Kentucky FY 2023 Investments The post Kentucky FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Maryland FY 2023 Investments The post Maryland FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Mississippi FY 2023 Investments The post Mississippi FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- New York FY 2023 Investments The post New York FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- North Carolina FY 2023 Investments The post North Carolina FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Ohio FY 2023 Investments The post Ohio FY 2023 Investments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.